Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
UHI is not a trend. UHI artificially raises the average temperature the trend is measured against therefore artificially lowering the trend. You can't admit it because that would end your conspiracy theory!Actually, it takes a convoluted rationalization to convince yourself that the UHI effect can actually raise temperature ANOMALIES since you actually acknowledge it raises temperature readings. Since anomalies are measured against the average temperature readings over 30 years, higher temperature readings yield a higher average the anomaly is measured against and therefore a lower anomaly. Since it is anomalies that show trends over time, the UHI effect lowers the trend and when corrected for will mathematically raise it.A few years ago I read the Hansen and Seto (?) paper on UHI and their method of correcting for it. it was bizarre and seemingly without commonsense. the end result was roughly half of the sites were raised, half lowered, for a net result of nothing.
it takes a whole lot of convoluted thinking to convince yourself (or anyone else) that urban heat island effect can actually lower the temperature readings so that they need to be artificially raised.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
- Albert Einstein
sorry, not buying that. UHI is a trend. airports add new runways, small buildings are replaced with bigger ones. greenspace gets built on and roads are paved, all in a steady progression (ok, I guess Detroit is an exception). if there was no other trend besides UHI then you would be lowering recent temps and raising old ones. in fact we see the exact opposite adjustments with recent temps raised and the past cooled. it does not matter what the other trends in temperature are, up or down, the correction for UHI is to lower the trend for all areas that are growing.
What you are all repeatedly and willfully ignoring is that the adjustments are being made in the open and that they are thoroughly justified.
What you are all repeatedly and willfully ignoring is that the adjustments are being made in the open and that they are thoroughly justified.
I've yet to see a justification for horsing with data TODAY that came from the 1930s.. There aren't even valid statistics from the 1930s to sanctify changes to the record based on locations of stations or "urban heating" or other homogenizing factors.
YET --- its happening apparently every day at GISS.. And strange enough EVERY CORRECTION THEY MAKE --- seems to be in favor of SUPPRESSING ALL TEMPERATURE values from the 1930s.. Coincidence? Nawwwwww..
UHI is not a trend. UHI artificially raises the average temperature the trend is measured against therefore artificially lowering the trend. You can't admit it because that would end your conspiracy theory!Actually, it takes a convoluted rationalization to convince yourself that the UHI effect can actually raise temperature ANOMALIES since you actually acknowledge it raises temperature readings. Since anomalies are measured against the average temperature readings over 30 years, higher temperature readings yield a higher average the anomaly is measured against and therefore a lower anomaly. Since it is anomalies that show trends over time, the UHI effect lowers the trend and when corrected for will mathematically raise it.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
- Albert Einstein
sorry, not buying that. UHI is a trend. airports add new runways, small buildings are replaced with bigger ones. greenspace gets built on and roads are paved, all in a steady progression (ok, I guess Detroit is an exception). if there was no other trend besides UHI then you would be lowering recent temps and raising old ones. in fact we see the exact opposite adjustments with recent temps raised and the past cooled. it does not matter what the other trends in temperature are, up or down, the correction for UHI is to lower the trend for all areas that are growing.
Not sarcastic. Serious as a heart attack. The data exists nut people are too lazy to do their own research.
Indeed. A lot of people just rely on what GISS, NOAA, and IPCC tell them.
Not sarcastic. Serious as a heart attack. The data exists nut people are too lazy to do their own research.
Indeed. A lot of people just rely on what GISS, NOAA, and IPCC tell them.
What you are all repeatedly and willfully ignoring is that the adjustments are being made in the open and that they are thoroughly justified.
I've yet to see a justification for horsing with data TODAY that came from the 1930s.. There aren't even valid statistics from the 1930s to sanctify changes to the record based on locations of stations or "urban heating" or other homogenizing factors.
YET --- its happening apparently every day at GISS.. And strange enough EVERY CORRECTION THEY MAKE --- seems to be in favor of SUPPRESSING ALL TEMPERATURE values from the 1930s.. Coincidence? Nawwwwww..
No, no coincidence at all. AGW can't survive with accurate data...so it must be suppressed.
AGW simply isn't science. Period.
Not sarcastic. Serious as a heart attack. The data exists nut people are too lazy to do their own research.
Indeed. A lot of people just rely on what GISS, NOAA, and IPCC tell them.
Exactly. There are records in every library where you can find every temp recorded for any given day. It's a matter of doing the research.
Not sarcastic. Serious as a heart attack. The data exists nut people are too lazy to do their own research.
Indeed. A lot of people just rely on what GISS, NOAA, and IPCC tell them.
Exactly. There are records in every library where you can find every temp recorded for any given day. It's a matter of doing the research.
Oh, hush. OP proves your cult is a fraud.Not sarcastic. Serious as a heart attack. The data exists nut people are too lazy to do their own research.
Indeed. A lot of people just rely on what GISS, NOAA, and IPCC tell them.
Instead of what Watt and Monkton, both proven liars and frauds, tell them. Oh yes, why in world should we rely on what millions of scientists are telling us instead of what paid shills for the energy corperations are telling us?
And it is not just GISS, NOAA, and IPCC. It is the USGS, and the same type of organization that every other industrial nation telling us the same thing. In other words, either you have a global conspiracy among scientists from every nation in the world, and every political system in the world, or you guys are candidates for tinfoil hats.
And logic tells us that you had better buy lots of rolls of tinfoil.
What, again? You've never accepted any evidence against your cult. You're incapable of acting against your programming.I've yet to see a justification for horsing with data TODAY that came from the 1930s.. There aren't even valid statistics from the 1930s to sanctify changes to the record based on locations of stations or "urban heating" or other homogenizing factors.
YET --- its happening apparently every day at GISS.. And strange enough EVERY CORRECTION THEY MAKE --- seems to be in favor of SUPPRESSING ALL TEMPERATURE values from the 1930s.. Coincidence? Nawwwwww..
No, no coincidence at all. AGW can't survive with accurate data...so it must be suppressed.
AGW simply isn't science. Period.
OK. Dumb fuck, supply us with evidence of suppressed information.
I have repeatedly supplied you fruitloops with the works of leading scientists on this subject, so supply us with real evidence that information is being suppressed.
Last year, I encountered a stark example of this. One of my colleagues was thinking about publishing a paper that challenges the IPCC interpretation of the previous pause during the 1940s to 1970′s. My colleague sent a .ppt presentation on this topic to three colleagues, each of whom is a very respected senior scientist and none of whom have been particularly vocal advocates on the subject of climate change (names are withheld to protect the guilty/innocent). Each of these scientists strongly encouraged my colleague NOT to publish this paper, since it would only provide fodder for the skeptics. (Note: my colleague has not yet written this paper, but not because he was discouraged by these colleagues).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will release a report on September 27 that scales back the severity of the global warming threat. Emails leaked to the Associated Press show some governments, including the United States, tried to make the IPCC change their report to downplay the slowdown in warming.
Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10 to 15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries.Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for skeptics.
The U.S. also urged the authors to include the "leading hypothesis" that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.
Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for any statistics. That year was exceptionally warm, so any graph showing global temperatures starting with 1998 looks flat. Using 1999 or 2000 as a starting year would yield a more upward-pointing curve. In fact, every year after 2000 has been warmer than the year 2000.
It's indicative of the rigid lockstep and thought control in the AGW community.Regarding your Judith Curry story - read it again and show us where it indicates anyone's work was SUPPRESSED. A colleague warning that one's work might encourage the skeptics is not suppression, it's advice.
Dave, everyone already undestands you're a very loyal cultist. No need to keep piling on the proof. Even your cult leaders are thinking your preaching has gotten excessive. That means you're actually not piling up any more cult brownie points, so it's all wasted effort.
It's indicative of the rigid lockstep and thought control in the AGW community.Regarding your Judith Curry story - read it again and show us where it indicates anyone's work was SUPPRESSED. A colleague warning that one's work might encourage the skeptics is not suppression, it's advice.
Wolfgang Warner publishes climate skeptic's paper, loses job - San Diego Conservative | Examiner.com
Climategate 2 and Corruption of Peer Review | New Zealand Climate Change
Climategate 2 and Corruption of Peer Review ? Part II | New Zealand Climate Change
